demoneta-14th century thought on coinage & money by bishop nicole mathematician, astronomer,...

8/3/2019 DeMoneta-14th Century Thought on Coinage & Money by Bishop Nicole Mathematician, Astronomer, Economist

1/30

DE MONETA (On Money)

DeMoneta-14th Century Thought on Coinage & Money by Bishop Nicole

Oresme-Mathematician, Astronomer, Economist

CHAPTER I

Why Money was invented

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He

separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people. Next, men

were multiplied on the earth, and possessions were divided to the best

advantage. The result of this was that one man had more than he needed of

one commodity, while another had little or none of it, and of another

commodity the converse was true: the shepherd had abundance of sheep and

wanted bread, the farmer the contrary. One country abounded in one thing

and lacked another. Men therefore began to trade by barter: one man gave

another a sheep for some corn, another gave his labour for bread or wool,

and so with other things. And this practice persisted in some states, as Justin1

tells us, till long afterwards. But as this exchange and transport of

commodities gave rise to many inconveniences, men were subtle enough to

devise the use of money to be the instrument for exchanging the natural

riches which of themselves minister to human need. For money is called

artificial riches seeing that a man who abounds in it may die of hunger; asappears from Aristotle's example of the greedy king,2 who prayed that

everything he touched should turn to gold, which the gods granted, and he

perished of hunger, as the poets tell. For money does not directly relieve the

necessities of life, but is an instrument artificially invented for the easier

exchange of natural riches. And it is clear without further proof that coin is

very useful to the civil community, and convenient, or rather necessary, to

the business of the state, as Aristotle proves in the fifth book of the Ethics,3

although Ovid4 says:

From earth we mine a source of future ill,

First iron and then gold, more deadly still.

1 Perhaps a reference to the account of the Scythians in Justin II. 2.3; cf. Aristotle Pol. I.

ix. 6 (1257@24).

1


2/30

2 Pol. I. ix. 11 (1257 b 16).3 Eth. V. v. 10-16 (1133@20).

4 Metamorphoses i. 140-2.

For that is caused by the perverse greed of wicked men, not by money itself,

which is a convenience for human intercourse, and whose use is essentially

good. Whence Cassiodorus says: However common money seems to usfrom our constant use of it, we should consider how good reason our

forefathers had to amass it.5 And he says in another place that, It is certain

that rnoneyers were established for the particular use of the public.6

CHAPTER II

The Material of Money

Now, since money is an instrument for the exchange of natural riches, asappears from the preceding chapter, it follows that it must be a fit tool for

the work. This implies that it must be easy to handle and to feel with the

hands, light to carry and that a small portion of it should purchase a larger

quantity of natural riches, with other conditions which will appear later.

Coin must therefore be made of a precious and rare material, such as gold.

But there must be enough of such material. Wherefore, if there is not enough

gold, money is also made of silver; and where these two metals do not exist

or are insufficient, they must be alloyed, or a simple money be made of

another metal, without alloy, as was formerly the case with copper, as Ovid

tells in the first book of theFasti, saying:

Men paid in copper once: they're now for gold,

And the new money elbows out the old.

A like change the Lord promised by the mouth of Isaiah:

For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver.

For these metals are the fittest for coining. And, as Cassiodorus says:

Aeacus and Indus, king of Scythia, are said to have been the first to

discover, one gold and the other silver, and to be praised for delivering themto man's use. And therefore so much of them ought not to be allowed to be

applied to other uses that there should not be enough left for money. It was

this consideration that led Theodoric, king of Italy, to order the gold and

silver deposited according to pagan custom in the tombs, to be removed and

2


3/30

5 Variae I. 10. 5.

6 Variae V. 39. 8.

used for coining for the public profit, saying: It was a crime to leave hidden

among the dead and useless, what would keep the living alive. On the other

hand it is inexpedient that the material of money should be too plentiful; for

that, as Ovid says, was the reason for the disuse of copper. That may be thereason why Providence has ordained that man should not easily obtain gold

and silver, the most suitable metals, in quantity, and that they cannot well be

made by alchemy, as some try to do; being, if I may say so, justly prevented

by nature, whose works they vainly try to outdo.

CHAPTER III

Of the Variety of Materials and of Alloy

Money, as was said in Chapter I, is the instrument of trade. And since both

for communities or individuals, trade must sometimes be large, or in bulk,

sometimes smaller, and more generally petty, or retail, it has been

convenient to have precious money, made of gold, easy to carry and to

count, and suitable for large transactions. It was also proper to have silver

money, less precious, suitable for giving change and for adjustments of

price, and for buying goods of lower value. And since a particular country is

not always furnished with silver in proportion to its natural riches, besides

which, the portion of silver which would be justly due for a pound of bread

or the like, would be too small to hold in the hand, money came to be coined

of a cheaper metal together with the silver, and that is the origin of our

black money, which is suitable for petty dealings. And thus, where silver

is not abundant, the best plan is to have three materials for money, gold,

silver and the black alloy. But it should be observed and laid down as a

general rule that no alloy should be permitted except in the least precious

metal used for small change. For instance, where the money consists of gold

and silver, the gold should never be alloyed if it can be coined pure.7

The reason is that all such mixture is naturally suspect because the

proportion of pure gold in it cannot readily be determined. Consequentlycoins should not be alloyed except for the necessity above-mentioned. And

this should only be done where the suspicion is least, or the fraud is of least

importance, that is in the less precious metal. Again, no such mixture should

7 The French translation adds: The gold which is unsuitable for coining florins because of

its alloy can be made into rings or other jewellery. The same comment is found in onelate MS of the Latin text. C adds aurum quidem non est aptum ad florenos si sit mixtum

3


4/30

anuli fiant.

be made except for the common good, on account of which money was

invented and by which it is regulated as is shown above. But there is no

necessity nor common advantage in alloying gold money where silver is also

in use; nor can it honestly be done, nor has it been done in any well

governed community.

CHAPTER IV

Of the Form or Shape of Money

When men first began to trade, or to purchase goods with money, the money

had no stamp or image, but a quantity of silver or bronze was exchanged for

meat and drink and was measured by weight. And since it was tiresome

constantly to resort to the scales and difficult to determine the exactequivalent by weighing, and since the seller could not be certain of the metal

offered or of its degree of purity, it was wisely ordained by the sages of that

time that pieces of money should be made of a given metal and of definite

weight and that they should be stamped with a design, known to everybody,

to indicate the quality and true weight of the coin, so that suspicion should

be averted and the value readily recognised. And that the stamp on coins was

instituted as a guarantee of fineness and weight, is clearly proved by the

ancient names of coins distinguishable by their stamp or design, such as

pound, shilling, penny, halfpenny, as, sextula, and the like, which are namesof weights applied to coins, as Cassiodorus8 says. Shekel, likewise, is the

name of a coin, as appears in Genesis,9 and also of a weight as appears in the

same book. The other names of coins are not proper (i.e. derived from the

essence), but accidental, or denominative from a place, a design or an

authority,10 or in some other way. But the pieces of money which are called

coin (nummisma) should be of a shape and quantity suitable for handling andcounting, and of a material capable of being coined, malleable and fit to

receive and retain an impression. Hence not all precious substances are fit

for coins: gems, lapis lazuli, pepper and the like are not naturally fit, but

gold and silver eminently are so, as we said before.

8 Variae VII. 32.

9 Genesis xxiii. 15.

10 e.g. Carolus,'' Louis etc.

4


5/30

CHAPTER V

Who has the Duty of Coining?

Furthermore, it was ordained of old, with good reason, and to prevent fraud,

that nobody may coin money or impress an image or design on his own goldand silver, but that the money, or rather the impression of its characteristic

design, should be made by one or more public persons deputed by the

community to that duty, since, as we have said, money is essentially

established and devised for the good of the community. And since the prince

is the most public person and of the highest authority, it follows that he

should make the money for the community and stamp it with a suitable

design. This stamp should be finely wrought and difficult to engrave or

counterfeit. It should also be penal for a foreign prince or any other to coin

money of like design but of lower weight, so that common people could notdistinguish one from the other. This should be a crime; nor can anyone have

such a privilege, for it is forgery; and it is a just cause for war.

CHAPTER VI

Who owns the Money?

Although it is the duty of the prince to put his stamp on the money for the

common good, he is not the lord or owner of the money current in his

principality. For money is a balancing instrument for the exchange of naturalwealth, as appears in Chapter I. It is therefore the property of those who

possess such wealth. For if a man gives bread or bodily labour in exchange

for money, the money he receives is as much his as the bread or bodily

labour of which he (unless he were a slave) was free to dispose. For it was

not to princes alone that God gave freedom to possess property, but to our

first parents and all their offspring, as it is in Genesis. Money, therefore,

does not belong to the prince alone. But if anyone object that our Saviour,

when a penny was shown Him, asked: Whose is this image and

superscription? and when it was answered Caesar's, gave judgment:Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God

the things that are God's (as though He meant The coin is Caesar's because

Caesar's image is stamped upon it), it is clear to anyone who reads the

context that He does not say that the money was due to Caesar because it

bore Caesar's image, but because it was tribute. For, as the apostle says:

Tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom. Christ therefore

5


6/30

showed that the stamp was the means of knowing to whom the tribute was

due, namely the person who fought the battles of the state, and by reason of

his dominion had the right to coin money. Thus, money belongs to the

community and to individuals. And so say Aristotle in the seventh book of

the Politics and Cicero about the end of the old Rhetoric.

CHAPTER VII

Who bears the Expense of Coining?

As money belongs to the community, it should be coined at the expense of

the community. The most appropriate way of doing this is to distribute the

expense over the whole coinage by causing the material, such as gold, when

it is brought to be coined or sold for coined money, to be bought for less

money than it could be coined into and at a certain fixed rate:11 e.g. if a markof silver can be coined into sixty-two shillings, and two shillings are needed

for labour and other necessaries in minting, the mark of silver will be worth

sixty shillings and the other two will be paid for the minting. But the rate

should be fixed high enough to cover the cost of coining at all times. And if

the money can be made at a lower price, it is reasonable that the balance

should go to the distributor or ordainer, to wit, the prince or the master of the

mint, as a sort of pension. But this rate should be a moderate one, and need

only be quite small if money is adequately plentiful, as shall be said later.

And if such a rate or pension were excessive it would be to the damage andprejudice of the whole community, as any man may easily see.

CHAPTER VIII

On Alterations in Coinage in general

First of all we must know that the existing laws, statutes, customs or

ordinances affecting the community, of whatever kind, must never be altered

without evident necessity. Indeed, as Aristotle says in the second book of the

Politics,12 an ancient positive law is not to be abrogated in favour of a better

11 The French version says fixed by the Lords and officers versed in the matter.

12 Pol. II. viii. 23 (1263@18).

new law, unless there is a notable difference in their excellence, because

changes of this kind lessen the authority of the laws and the respect paid6


7/30

them, and all the more if they are frequent. For hence arise scandal and

murmuring among the people and the risk of disobedience. Especially if

such changes should be for the worse, for then they would be intolerable and

unjust. Now it is the case, that the course and value of money in the realm

should be, as it were, a law and a fixed ordinance. This is indicated by the

fact that pensions and yearly rents are reckoned according to the value of

money, i.e. in a certain number of pounds or shillings. From which it is clear

that a change in money should never be made, unless perhaps under eminent

necessity or for the obvious advantage of the whole community. Wherefore

Aristotle, in the fifth book of the Ethics speaking of coin, says: It aims at

remaining of the same value.

But alteration in money (considering the matter generally) may be regarded

as being made in various ways: first, to put it shortly, in form or shape; then,

in bimetallic ratio; in value and denomination; again, in quantity or weight,and lastly in material substance. For money may be altered in any one or

more of these five ways. We had better then, discuss these ways, and

reasonably inquire whether money can justly be altered in any of them, and,

if so, when, by whom, how and for what reason.

CHAPTER IX

Change of Form

The impressed form or stamp of the money can be altered in two ways. One

is, without demonetising the old money; as, if a prince should inscribe his

own name on the money issued during his reign, allowing the old money to

pass current. This is not strictly an alteration, nor is it a great matter if it is

done, unless another alteration is involved.

The form may be changed in another way, by making new money and

demonetising the old. That is definitely an alteration and can justly be made

for one of two reasons. One is, if a foreign prince or false coiners

maliciously copy or counterfeit the moulds or dies of the money and there isfound in the realm a forged, false money, like the good in colour and form.

Then, if no other remedy could be applied, it would be well to change the

moulds and the form of the stamp. Another reason might be if perchance the

old money was too much injured by age or reduced in weight. Its currency

should then be forbidden and the new and better money should be given a

different stamp, so that the common people should be able to know one from7


8/30

the other.

But I do not think that the prince should be able to demonetise the old

money except for one of these reasons, for such a change would otherwise

be unnecessary, scandalous and to the damage of the community. Nor does it

appear that the prince could be induced to make such a change but for one of

two reasons: either because he wishes to have no other name than his own

inscribed on the coins, which is a slight to his predecessors, and empty

ambition; or because he wants to get a larger profit by coining more money,

as was mentioned in Chapter VII, and that is covetousness and to the

prejudice and loss of the whole community.

CHAPTER X

Change of Ratio

Ratio is the comparison or habitual relation of one thing to another, just as in

the proportion of gold money to silver money there ought to be a definite

relation in value and price. For as gold is naturally more precious and

scarcer than silver, and more difficult to find and to get, gold of the same

weight ought to excel silver in value by a definite proportion. The ratio, for

instance, might be twenty to one, and thus one pound of gold would be

worth twenty pounds of silver, one mark twenty marks, one ounce twenty

ounces, and so forth. And another proportion is possible, such as twenty-fiveto three, or any other. But this proportion ought to follow the natural relation

in value of gold to silver, and a ratio should be fixed, not to be arbitrarily

changed, nor justly varied except for a reasonable cause and an alteration

arising from the material, a thing which rarely happens. Thus, if it were

notorious that less gold was being found than before, it would have to be

dearer as compared with silver, and would change in price and value. But if

there were little or no material change, the prince would not be free to make

such a change in price. For if he were to alter the ratio arbitrarily, he might

unfairly draw to himself his subjects' money, for instance, by fixing a low

price for gold and buying it for silver, and then raising the price when hesold his gold or gold money; or by doing the same with silver.

It would be like fixing a price for all the corn in his kingdom, buying it and

selling again at a higher price. Everyone can clearly see that this would be an

unjust exaction and actually tyranny: indeed, it would appear outrageous and

worse than that which Pharaoh did in Egypt, of which Cassiodorus says:138


9/30

We read that Joseph gave leave to buy corn, to meet the deadly famine, but

set such a price that the people, hungry for relief, sold themselves into

slavery to him to buy themselves food. What a miserable life it must have

been for those to whom the bitter bread of relief seemed to take away their

freedom, where the freed man groaned no less than the captive wept. I

believe the holy man to have been compelled by the necessity both of

satisfying a greedy prince and of helping a perishing people.

So Cassiodorus.

But the monopoly of coinage of which we spoke would be even more

tyrannous, being more involuntary and not for the need of the community,

but literally to its harm. But if anyone should say that corn is not a fair

parallel, because certain commodities are the private property of the prince

for which he may set his own prices, as some say is the case with salt and a

fortiori with money, we answer that a monopoly orgabelle of salt, or anypublic necessity, is unjust. And that princes who have made laws to give

themselves this privilege are the men of whom the Lord says, in the words of

the prophet Isaiah:14 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and

write grievousness which they have prescribed. Again, it is clear from our

first and sixth chapters, that money is the property of the commonwealth.

Therefore, and lest the prince should unfairly put forward the reason given in

this chapter for altering the ratio, the community alone has the right to

decide if, when, how, and to what extent this ratio is to be altered, and the

prince may not in any way usurp it.

CHAPTERXI

Change of Name

As was said in Chapter IV, there are certain names or non-essential

denominations of money which indicate the author or the place of coinage,

13 Variae XII. 28, 7.14 Isaiah x. I.

and these have little or nothing to do with our subject. But others are

essential or proper to coin, e.g. penny, shilling, pound and the like, which

denote the value or weight and were given by our forefathers after deep

thought and with great mystery. Of which Cassiodorus15 says:

It is remarkable on how rational a plan money was brought together by the

9


10/30

ancients. They would have six thousand pence to be a shilling (solidus),16 in

order that the round shape of radiant metal, like a golden sun, might

correspond numerically with the age of the world. But the number six

(senarius) (which learned antiquity defined not undeservedly as perfect) it

signified by the name of ounce (uncia), the first degree of measurement, andmultiplying it by twelve to match the months, brought it up to a pound to

correspond with the year. What a wise invention! How far-seeing were our

elders! It was most ingenious to devise measures for human use and at the

same time symbolise so many of the secrets of nature. That, therefore, is

deservedly called a pound which has been so weightily considered.

So far Cassiodorus.

But although we now apply these names differently to our coins, they must

not be changed to no purpose. Suppose, for example, that there are three

kinds of coins, the first worth a penny, the second a shilling and the third apound. Then if the description of one is altered but not that of any other, that

will change their proportionate value. So, if anyone were to call or fix the

value of the first kind at two pence without altering the others to match, the

proportionate value would be changed, a thing which is not lawful (as

appears in the preceding chapter), except in very rare cases with which I am

not concerned at present. It is necessary, then, that if the proportion is to

remain unchanged, and one coin changes its denomination, the others should

be changed in proportion, so that if the first coin is called two pence, the

second shall be two shillings and the third two pounds. And if no other

change were made, it would be necessary for goods to be bought or priced at

proportionately higher rates. But such a change would be to no purpose, and

must not be made, because it would be scandalous and a false denomination.

For that would be called a pound which really was not a pound, which is, as

we have said, improper. But no other impropriety would ensue, except

where pensions or rents were appointed in terms of money. For in that case it

is immediately apparent that besides the impropriety which we have named,

15 i.e. the Romansolidus, worth 25 denarii.

16 As being 1+2+3.such rents by this change would either be reduced or would increase

unreasonably and unjustly and to the damage of many people. For where

some people's pensions or rents were inadequate, they should be augmented

by another special measure, and not this prejudicial and hurtful one.

Therefore this change of denomination should never be made; least of all

should the prince attempt to make it.

10


11/30

CHAPTER XII

Change of Weight

If the weight of a coin be changed and its value proportionately altered and

also its denomination and its form, a new variety of money is created, as if a

penny were made into two halfpence, involving neither loss nor gain. This

may lawfully sometimes be done by reason of a real change in the value of

the material, a thing which very rarely happens, as was said in Chapter X,

speaking of another kind of change. But I am now speaking of a definite

alteration of the weight or quantity of money without any change of name or

value. And it seems to me that such a change is plainly unlawful, especially

in a prince, who cannot do it without disgraceful injustice. Because, in the

first place, the prince's image or superscription is placed by him on the cointo guarantee the weight and standard of the material, as was proved above in

Chapter IV. Consequently, if the weight is not true, this is at once seen to be

a foul lie and a fraudulent cheat. For measures of corn and wine and other

measures are frequently stamped with the king's public mark, and any man

tampering with these is held to be a forger. In exactly the same way, the

inscription on a coin indicates its weight and the purity of its material. Can

any words be too strong17 to express how unjust, how detestable it is,

especially in a prince, to reduce the weight without altering the mark?

Cassiodorus says on this point, in the fifth book of his Variae:18

For what is so criminal as to permit oppressors to sin against the very nature

of the balance, so that the very symbol of justice is notoriously destroyed by

fraud?

Secondly, the prince can in this way get possession of other people's money,

nor can there be any other reason why he should make such a change. For he

17 The French version had who can trust a prince who reduces etc.?

18 Variae V. 39. 5.

would receive money of good weight, recoin it and pay out coins of shortweight. And this is the very thing which God forbids in sundry places of

Holy Scripture. Of this Solomon says: Divers weights and divers measures,

both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.19 And in Deuteronomy it is

said that: All that do such things . . . are an abomination unto the Lord.20

Therefore riches thus gathered to their lord's hurt are soon consumed,

because, as Cicero says:21 Ill-gotten goods never prosper.

11


12/30

CHAPTER XIII

Change of Material

The material of money is either simple or mixed, as appeared in Chapter III.

If simple, it may be abandoned as insufficient; for instance if little or no gold

could be found, it must needs cease to be coined: and if it again were found

in sufficient plenty, money would again begin to be coined of it, as has

sometimes happened. Again, a particular material might have to cease to be

coined because it was too abundant. It was for that reason that copper money

formerly went out of use, as was said in Chapter III. But such causes occur

rarely, and in no other way is a material for money, pure or mixed, to be

abandoned or newly adopted. But if the material be mixed, it should be so

only in the less precious of the metals which are coined pure (as was provedin Chapter III), and in black money, that the pure may be distinguished from

the mixed. And the mixture (or alloy) must be made in a fixed proportion,

such as ten parts of silver to one, or to three, of some other metal, as is

convenient,22 as we said in Chapter III. And this proportion may be altered

on account of a real or corresponding proportion or variation in the nature of

the material, and in two ways. Either owing to the lack of material, like

having no silver, or conspicuously less than before, in which case the

proportion of silver to the other metal in the black money may be

diminished; or, if silver were much more abundant than before, the quantityof silver in the mixture should be raised. But, as has been said, such causes

are very rare and, if the case occurs, such a change in proportion should be

made by the community, for greater safety and to prevent fraud, as was said

19 Proverbs xx. 10.

20 Deut. xxv. 16.

21 Philippics II. 65 (quoting Naevius).22 The French version adds, and ordained by the wise lords expert in the matter.

in Chapter X of the change in the (bimetallic) ratio. But in no other case

should the mixture, or its proportion, be changed, least of all by the prince,for the reasons given in the last chapter, which are directly applicable to the

present question since the stamp on the coin denotes the genuineness of the

material and its proportions, and so to change these is to falsify the coinage.

Besides, some coins are inscribed with the name of God or of some saint and

with the sign of the cross, which was devised and appointed of old as a

witness of the genuineness of the money in material and weight. If the

12


13/30

prince, then, despite this inscription, should change the material or the

weight, he would seem to be silently lying and forswearing himself and

bearing false witness, and also transgressing that commandment which says:

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.23 Also he

misuses the word money, for Uguccio24 says: Moneta is so called from

moneo (to warn) because it warns us against fraud in metal or weight.

Again, a prince by this means could wrongfully draw to himself the wealth

of his people, as was said in the last chapter on change of weight, and many

other anomalies would result. This fraud indeed would surely be worse than

that of change of weight, because it is more cunning and less apparent and

does more harm and injury to the community. And for this reason, where

such alloy or black money exists, the community ought to keep in some

public place or places a sample of this proportion or quality of alloy, to

prevent the prince (which God forbid) or the moneyers secretly committing

this fraud in the alloy, just as examples of other measures are frequently keptin charge of the community.

CHAPTER XIV

Compound Change of Money

There is a compound change of money when more simple changes than one

are combined, as by changing at the same time the (bimetallic) ratio or the

mixture of materials and possibly the weight as well. There would thus be anumber of possible combinations of the five simple changes already

described. And since no simple change ought to be made except for the real

and natural causes mentioned which very rarely occur, it is obvious that the

occasion for a compound change will even more rarely, or perhaps never,

23 Exodus xx. 7.

24 Uguccione of Pisa, Bishop of Ferrara, in hisDerivationes magnae.

happen. And if it should, a fortiori such a compound change must never be

made by the prince, because of the dangers and disadvantages already

named, but only by the community. For if so many abuses result from simplechanges wrongly made, as we have said, much greater and worse would

follow from a compound change. For money ought to be true and just in

substance and in weight, as is shown us in the Holy Scriptures, where it is

said of Abraham that he bought a field for which he gave 400 shekels of

silver of approved public money.25 If then the money were good and were

not unnecessarily altered, since it would last a long time, there would not be

13


14/30

any need to make a great deal of it nor to have many moneyers at the public

expense. And this would be to the public advantage, as was suggested in

Chapter VII. On the whole then, we must conclude from the premisses that

no change of the money, simple or compound, is to be made on the sole

authority of the prince, especially where he wishes to do it for the sake of the

profit and gain to be got from the change.

CHAPTER XV

That the Profit accruing to the Prince from Alteration of the Coinage is unjust

I am of opinion that the main and final cause why the prince pretends to the

power of altering the coinage is the profit or gain which he can get from it; it

would otherwise be vain to make so many and so great changes. I propose

therefore to give fuller proof that such gain is unjust. For every change ofmoney, except in the very rare cases which I have mentioned, involves

forgery and deceit, and cannot be the right of the prince, as has previously

been shown. Therefore, from the moment when the prince unjustly usurps

this essentially unjust privilege, it is impossible that he can justly take profit

from it. Besides, the amount of the prince's profit is necessarily that of the

community's loss. But whatever loss the prince inflicts on the community is

injustice and the act of a tyrant and not of a king, as Aristotle26 says. And if

he should tell the tyrant's usual lie, that he applies that profit to the public

advantage, he must not be believed, because he might as well take my coatand say he needed it for the public service. And Saint Paul says that we are

not to do evil that good may come.27Nothing therefore should be extorted

25 Genesis xxiii. 16.26 Pol. V. x. 10 (1310b40) ; cf. Eth. ix (1160b2).

27 Romans iii. 8.

on the pretence that it will be used for good purposes afterwards. Again, if

the prince has the right to make a simple alteration in the coinage and draw

some profit from it, he must also have the right to make a greater alteration

and draw more profit, and to do this more than once and make still more,and also to make one or more compound alterations, constantly making

more profit in the ways already described. And it is probable that he or his

successors would go on doing this either of their own motion or by the

advice of their council as soon as this was permitted, because human nature

is inclined and prone to heap up riches when it can do so with ease. And so

the prince would be at length able to draw to himself almost all the money or

14


15/30

riches of his subjects and reduce them to slavery. And this would be

tyrannical, indeed true and absolute tyranny, as it is represented by

philosophers and in ancient history.

CHAPTER XVI

That such Profit is unnatural

Although all injustice is in a way contrary to nature, yet to make a profit

from altering the coinage is specifically an unnatural act of injustice. For it is

natural for certain natural riches to multiply, like grains of corn, which, as

Ovid says, when sown, the field with ample interest repays. But it is

monstrous and unnatural that an unfruitful thing should bear, that a thing

specifically sterile, such as money, should bear fruit and multiply of itself.

Therefore when profit is made from money, not by laying it out in thepurchase of natural wealth, its proper and natural use, but by changing it into

itself, as changing one form of it for another, or giving one form for another,

such profit is vile and unnatural. It is by this reasoning that Aristotle proves,

in the first book of the Politics, that usury is against nature, because the

natural use of money is as an instrument for the exchange of natural wealth,

as has frequently been said. Anyone therefore who uses it otherwise, misuses

it against the natural institution of money, for he causes money to beget

money, which, as Aristotle says, is against nature. And, besides, in these

changes by which profit accrues it is necessary to call something which intruth is not a penny, a penny, and which is not a pound, a pound, as has

already been said in another connexion. But it is clear that this is no less than

to disturb the order of nature and of reason, of which Cassiodorus says:

Pay your shilling, and keep something back if you are strong enough;

deliver a pound, and make it less if you can. In all such cases, as the names

themselves show, you pay in full, or you are not giving what you say you

give. You cannot by any means use the names of whole units and yet make

fraudulent deductions. Is not such a violation of nature's secrets, such an

attempt to obscure the greatest certainties, plainly a cruel and disgraceful

wound to truth itself? Weight and measure are the first things to prove, forall is chaos where there is deceit in the unit of measurement.

Again, it is said in the book of Wisdom that God ordered all things by

measure, weight and number; but in changing of money there is no profit

unless fraud is committed in these most certain things, as I have declared

before. Therefore he who seeks to profit from such changes of money sins15


16/30

against God and against nature.

CHAPTER XVII

That Profit from the Change of Money is worse than Usury

It seems to me that there are three ways in which profit may be made from

money, without laying it out for its natural purpose; one is the art of the

moneychanger, banking or exchange, another is usury, a third alteration of

the coinage. The first way is contemptible, the second bad and the third

worse. Aristotle mentioned the first two,28but not the third, because in his

times such wickedness had not yet been invented. That the first is

contemptible and disreputable, Aristotle proves by the reasons given in the

last chapter, for this is as it were to make money beget money. He also calls

exchange obolostatic, what we commonly callPoitevinage. It was for thatreason that Saint Matthew, the apostle who had been a moneychanger, did

not return to his former calling after our Lord's resurrection, as Saint Peter,

who had been a fisherman, did. And in giving this reason, the Blessed

Gregory says:29 It is one thing to earn a living by fishing, and another to

amass money from the profits of receipt of custom. For there are many

trades which can scarcely if ever be practised without sin, etc. For there are

certain vulgar crafts which defile the body, such as cleaning the sewers,30

and others which, like this, defile the soul. As to usury, it is certainly bad,

detestable and unjust, and Holy Scripture says so. But it remains to show

28 Pol. I. x. 4-5 (1258b1-8).

29 Homiliae in Evangelia xxiv (col. 1184c).

30 The French adds chimneys.

that gaining money by altering the coinage is even worse than usury. The

usurer has lent his money to one who takes it of his own free will, and can

then enjoy the use of it and relieve his own necessity with it, and what he

repays in excess of the principal is determined by free contract between the

parties. But a prince, by unnecessary change in the coinage, plainly takes the

money of his subjects against their will, because he forbids the older moneyto pass current, though it is better, and anyone would prefer it to the bad; and

then unnecessarily and without any possible advantage to his subjects, he

will give them back worse money. And even if he makes better money than

before, it is only with a view to a future debasement, and that he may give

them (meanwhile) less of the good money than the corresponding value of

the old. In either case he keeps back part for himself. In so far then as he

16


17/30

receives more money than he gives, against and beyond the natural use of

money, such gain is equivalent to usury; but is worse than usury because it is

less voluntary and more against the will of his subjects, incapable of

profiting them, and utterly unnecessary. And since the usurer's interest is not

so excessive, or so generally injurious to the many, as this impost, levied

tyrannically and fraudulently, against the interest and against the will of the

whole community, I doubt whether it should not rather be termed robbery

with violence or fraudulent extortion.

CHAPTER XVIII

That such Alterations of Money are essentially not permissible

Sometimes, lest worse befall and to avoid scandal, dishonourable and bad

things such as public brothels are allowed in a community. Sometimes also,from necessity or for convenience, some contemptible business like

moneychanging is permitted, or some evil one, like usury. But there seems to be no

earthly cause why so much gain should be allowed from alteration of the

coinage for profit. It does not avoid scandal, but begets it, as appears in

Chapter VIII, and it has many awkward consequences, some of which have

already been mentioned, while others will appear later, nor is there any

necessity or convenience in doing it, nor can it advantage the

commonwealth. A clear sign of this is that such alterations are a modern

invention, as was mentioned in the last chapter. For such a thing was neverdone in cities or kingdoms formerly or now well governed. Nor have I found

any mention of it in history except that in a letter of Cassiodorus written in

the name of Theodoric, king of Italy, a slight change of weight, which a

certain treasurer had made in paying some soldiers, is severely blamed and

thoroughly censured. Writing of this to Boetius, the king says:31 Wherefore

let your prudence, learned in philosophic doctrines, expel wicked lying from

the company of truth, lest anyone should be tempted to diminish its

integrity. And, a little later, he continues: The wages of labourers must not

be docked, but payment must be made in full to him of whom faithful

service is required. If the Italians or Romans did in the end make suchalterations, as appears from ancient bad money sometimes to be found in the

country, this was probably the reason why their noble empire came to

nothing. It appears therefore that these changes are so bad that they are

essentially impermissible.

17


18/30

CHAPTER XIX

Of certain Disadvantages to the Prince resulting from Alterations of the Coinage

Many great disadvantages arise from such alterations in the coinage, some of

which specially affect the prince, others the whole community, and othersparticular parts of the community. Many of these have lately been seen to

occur in the realm of France, and some have already been named, which

must nevertheless be recapitulated. First, it is exceedingly detestable and

disgraceful in a prince to commit fraud, to debase his money, to call what is

not gold, gold, and what is not a pound, a pound, and so forth as in Chapters

XII and XIII. Besides, it is his duty to condemn false coiners. How can he

blush deep enough, if that be found in him which in another he ought to

punish by a disgraceful death? Again, it is a great scandal, as was said in

Chapter VIII, and contemptible in a prince, that the money of his kingdomnever remains the same, but changes from day to day, and is sometimes

worth on the same day more in one place than in another. Also, as time goes

on and changes proceed, it often happens that nobody knows what a

particular coin is worth, and money has to be dealt in, bought and sold, or

changed from its value, a thing which is against its nature. And so there is no

certainty in a thing in which certainty is of the highest importance, but rather

uncertain and disordered confusion, to the prince's reproach. Also it is

absurd and repugnant to the royal dignity to prohibit the currency of the true

and good money of the realm, and from motives of greed to command, or

31 Cassiodorus Variae I. x. 2.

rather compel, subjects to use less good money; which amounts to saying

that good is evil and vice versa, whereas it was said to such from the Lord,

by his prophet:

Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.

And again, it is a disgrace to a prince to dishonour his predecessors, for we

are all bound by the Lord's commandment to honour our parents. But he

seems to detract from the honour of his ancestors when he cries down their

good money, and has it, and with it their image, cut up and in place of the

gold money which they coined makes money which is partly brass. This

seems to be foreshadowed in the first book of Kings32 where we read that

King Rehoboam took away the golden shields which his father Solomon had

18


19/30

made, in exchange for which he made brazen shields. That same Rehoboam

lost five-sixths of his people because he tried at the beginning of his reign to

overtax his subjects. Furthermore, the king ought exceedingly to abhor

tyrannical acts, of which as we have said before alteration of the coinage is

one. And that is prejudicial and dangerous to all the king's posterity, as shall

be shown more at length later.

CHAPTER: XX

Of other Disadvantages to the Community as a whole

Among the many disadvantages arising from alteration of the coinage which

affect the whole community, is one which was the main subject of Chapter

XV, namely that the prince could thus draw to himself almost all the moneyof the community and unduly impoverish his subjects. And as some chronic

sicknesses are more dangerous than others because they are less perceptible,

so such an exaction is the more dangerous the less obvious it is, because its

oppression is less quickly felt by the people than it would be in any other

form of contribution. And yet no tallage can be heavier, more general or

more severe.

Again, such alterations and debasements diminish the amount of gold and

32 Kings xiv. 27 (D. V. 3 Kings). It was Shishak, in fact, who took away the golden

shields.

silver in the realm, since these metals, despite any embargo, are carried

abroad, where they command a higher value. For men try to take their

money to the places where they believe it to be worth most. And this reduces

the material for money in the realm.33

Again, foreigners frequently coin similar counterfeit money and bring it to

the country where the debased coin is current and thus rob the king of the

profit which he thinks he is making. It may be, too, that some of the materialis consumed in the constant melting and re-melting which goes on where

such alterations are made. There are thus three ways in which the material of

money is lessened by these alterations. They cannot therefore last long

unless the material is abundant in mines or otherwise, and so the prince

would at last be unable to coin enough good money. Again, because of these

alterations, good merchandise or natural riches cease to be brought into a

19


20/30

kingdom in which money is so changed, since merchants, other things being

equal, prefer to pass over to those places in which they receive sound and

good money. Furthermore, in such a kingdom internal trade is disturbed and

hindered in many ways by such changes, and while they last, money rents,

yearly pensions, rates of hire, cesses and the like, cannot be well and justly

taxed or valued, as is well known. Neither can money safely be lent or credit

given. Indeed many refuse to give that charitable help on account of such

alterations. And yet a sufficiency of metal for coin, merchants and all these

other things mentioned are either necessary or highly useful to humanity,

and their opposites are prejudicial and hurtful to the whole civil community.

CHAPTERXXI

Of Disadvantages to part of the Community

Some sections of the community are occupied in affairs honourable or

profitable to the whole state, as in the growing of natural wealth or

negotiating on behalf of the community.34 Such are churchmen, judges,

soldiers, husbandmen, merchants, craftsmen and the like. But another

33 The French adds and the coining of money in the land where the debasement occurs.

34 . . . as by acquiring natural wealth, by prayers and supplications for divine help, by

maintaining justice and by dealing with certain matters for common need or profit. Fr.

Vers., and there are traces of this wording in one late MS of the Latin.section augments its own wealth by unworthy business, as do moneychangers,

bankers or dealers in bullion: a disgraceful trade as was said in

Chapter XVIII. These men, then, who are as it were unwanted by the state,

and some others such as receivers and financial agents, etc., take a great part

of the profit or gain arising from changes in coinage and by guile or by good

luck, draw wealth from them, against God and Justice, since they are

undeserving of such riches and unworthy of such wealth. But others, who

are the best sections of the community, are impoverished by it; so that the

prince in this way damages and overburdens the larger and better part of his

subjects and yet does not receive the whole of the profit; but the persons

above-mentioned, whose business is contemptible and largely fraudulent, get

a large part of it. Again, when the prince does not announce beforehand the

date and the scheme of the alteration which he means to make, some

persons, by their own cunning or through their friends, secretly foreknow it,

and buy up merchandise with the weak money to sell again for the sound,

20


21/30

get rich quickly, and make an excessive and undue profit against the lawful

course of normal trade.35 And this seems to be a kind of monopoly to the

prejudice and damage of all the rest of the community. Furthermore, by such

changes rents assessed in terms of money are necessarily unjustly lessened

or unjustly raised, as was said before in Chapter XI on change of name. The

prince, also, by such variations and sophistications of coin gives scoundrels

an opportunity to coin false money, either because they consider that the

prince has already done so and it is thus less against their conscience, or

because the forgery is less quickly found out and they can more easily

commit more crimes in these conditions than if good money were constantly

current. Besides, in these circumstances, what innumerable perplexities,

obscurities, errors and insuperable difficulties occur in accounts of

expenditure and receipts! Hence also arise matters for lawsuits and various

issues, insufficient payments of debts, frauds, disorders, manifold abuses and

sundry disadvantages more than I can describe and possibly worse andgreater than some that have been mentioned. And no wonder, for as Aristotle

says:36 One error has many consequences as may easily be seen.

35 Fr. Vers. adds at which St Augustine is amazed and much marvels.

36 Top. ii. 5. ?

CHAPTER XXII

Whether the Community can make such Alterations

Since the coinage is the property of the community as was shown in Chapter

VI, it appears that the community can dispose of it as it pleases. It can

therefore alter it after any fashion, make what gain it will from it and treat it

as its own, especially if it needs a large sum of money for war or for the

ransom of its prince from captivity or some accident of the kind. For in that

case it might raise the sum by an alteration of the coinage nor would this beunnatural or like usury, because it would not be done by the prince but by

the community to which the money belonged. For in this way many of the

objections to the alteration of the coinage already made would drop and have

no place. And it appears not only that the community might do this, but also

that it ought, assuming that the contribution is necessary, for such an

alteration seems to unite almost all the good conditions required by any

21


22/30

tallage or contribution. For it brings in much profit in little time, is very easy

to collect and assess or share without employing a large staff or risking fraud

in collection, and is cheap to collect. Nothing, either, can be devised more

fair or proportional, since he who can afford most pays most. And it is, for

its amount, less seen or felt and more endurable without danger of rebellion

or popular discontent. For it is universal: neither clerk nor noble can escape

it by privilege or otherwise, as many try to escape other contributions,

causing envyings, dissensions, litigation, scandals and many other evils

which do not arise from such an alteration of the coinage. Therefore, in the

case presupposed, it can and should be done by the community.

But in this matter it seems to me now, with all respect for wiser heads, that it

may be laid down that the money needed by the community should be

exported to, or spent in distant lands and among people with whom there is

no intercourse, and also be so much as to cause a notorious lack of thematerials for money in the community for a long time. And if so, the sum

may be raised by lightening or alloying the coin, because if this were not

done, the alteration would have to be made later for the reason and in the

way given in Chapter XIII. But if the sum be not so great or be otherwise

expended, or in any other way be such as not to cause a notable and long

lack of material for money in the community, I maintain that besides the

disadvantages hinted at in the present chapter, such an alteration of the

coinage would involve more, and worse things than those above explained,

than would any other contribution. And the worst danger would be lest the

prince should at last assume the right to do this and then all the before

mentioned evils would come back again. Nor does it matter that, as we

began by saying, the money belongs to the community, because neither the

community nor anyone else has the right to misuse or unlawfully use his

own property, as the community would be doing if it made such an alteration

in the coinage. And if the community, rightly or wrongly, should make such

a change, the money must with all speed be brought back to its due and

permanent state, and all taking of profit from it must cease.

CHAPTER XXIII

An Argument that the Prince may alter the Coinage

It is usually said that in an emergency all things belong to the prince.

Therefore in an imminent or instant emergency, he may take as much of the

money of his realm as he chooses, in any way he likes, for the defence of the22


23/30

commonwealth or of his own position as prince. And alteration of the

coinage is an appropriate and fitting way of doing this, as may be proved

from what is said in the previous chapter. Again, supposing that the prince

has no right at the common or ordinary law so to alter the coinage and take

such a profit from it, it might be said that he can do so in virtue of a

prerogative, for instance a special privilege from the Pope, or the Church, or

the Roman Emperor, or even from the community, granted to him of old as a

heritage for his services.

The money, also, is the property of the community, as appears from Chapter

VI, and the community can change it as was said in the last chapter;

therefore it can, or could, grant the authority to make such a change to the

prince, renounce the right to ordain or change the coinage, and give part of

the money to the prince to take in any way he pleased. Again, if by the

common law it rests with the community, as has been said, to regulate thecoinage, and it, owing to popular discord, has failed to agree on a plan, may

it not compromise by leaving the regulation of the coinage henceforward and

for ever to the will of the prince? It may surely do so, and allow him on this

account to take a profit from the change or regulation of the coinage. It was

said, too, in Chapter VII that a certain pension ought to be fixed to cover

the expense of coining and that the prince may have something out of or in

excess of that pension for himself. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, he

may have or take more and more from this and consequently as much as he

would get from an alteration in the coinage. He may, therefore, in the same

way, raise that profit by such alterations. Besides, the prince ought to have a

large settled revenue from the community with which to maintain a noble

and honourable estate as becomes princely magnificence or royal majesty.

These revenues, then, must be attached to the princely dominion or the

prerogative of the royal crown. It is therefore possible that a considerable

part of these revenues was formerly charged on the coinage, so that it would

be lawful for the prince to make a profit by altering the coin. It is also

possible that if this right were taken away the rest of the revenue would not

be enough for a princely state. Consequently to propose to take from him the

power of altering the coinage, is an attack on the honour of the king, adisherison of the prince, it is indeed impoverishing him and robbing him of

his magnificence, not only unjustly, but disgracefully to the whole

community which cannot with decency have a prince unless he maintains his

dignity.

23


24/30

CHAPTER XXIV

Reply to the previous Chapter and main Conclusion

Although there might possibly be many difficulties in meeting the first

argument, I will pass over them briefly, as it occurs to me now that, lest theprince should pretend such an emergency when there is none, as Aristotle

says tyrants do, it should be determined by the community or the better part

of it, expressly or tacitly, when, what and how great an emergency threatens.

I mean by expressly, that the community should be assembled, if there is

the opportunity; tacitly, if the emergency is so imminent that the people

cannot be called together and so plain that it is subsequently notorious. For

in such a case the prince may take some part of the property of his subjects,

not by changing the coinage, but by way of a loan to be repaid in full later.

On the second point, that the prince may have a privilege to change the

money, first, I will not discuss the Pope's powers, but I think he never has

made or would make such a grant since he would be giving a licence to do

evil, which no possible good deeds could qualify a man to receive. As for

the Roman Emperor, I say that he never had power to give any prince the

privilege to do what he could not lawfully do himself, e.g. such a change in

the money, as appears from what has been said. As to the community, it has

been said in Chapter XXII that it cannot change the money except in a

particular case, and then, if it should entrust the task to the prince, within

reasonable limits which are apparent from that chapter and from others, theprince would still not be doing it of his own authority but as the executor of

a public ordinance. In answer to another argument, that the community

which owns the money may divest itself of its right and transfer it to the

prince, it seems, in the first place, that no well advised community would do

such a thing; and secondly that it is unlawful even for itself to alter the

coinage or to misuse its own property in any way, as was said in Chapter

XXII. Again, a community of citizens which is naturally free would never

knowingly reduce itself to slavery or submit itself to the yoke of a tyranny.

If, therefore, it were cheated or terrified and coerced into granting the princesuch alterations without foreseeing the resulting evils, and that this would

amount to slavery, it can immediately or otherwise revoke the grant. Again,

anything belonging to anyone as of natural right cannot justly be transferred

to another; but that is how money belongs to the free community, as is clear

enough from Chapters I and VI. So, just as the community cannot grant to

the prince authority to misuse the wives of any of its citizens he will, it

24


25/30

cannot give him such a privilege over the coinage as he can only misuse, by

exacting a profit from changing it, as appears from several earlier chapters.

The same argument applies to what was added about a disagreement in the

community in the regulation of the coinage and its compromising in so far

on the prince's decision. I admit it can do so for some purposes and on some

occasions; but not by giving him the power to take such undue profit from

the said unnecessary alterations. To another argument, borrowed from

Chapter VII, that the prince may have some profit from the coinage, the

answer is easy, namely that this is a small and limited pension, which is not

to be at all augmented by alteration of the coinage, but is independent of any

change. In reply to another argument, that the prince may have revenues and

ought to have a magnificent and honourable estate, such revenues can and

should be appropriated and drawn from other sources than such undue

alterations from which, as has previously been shown, such great evils and

disadvantages arise. And supposing that some part of such revenue ischarged on the coinage, it must be fixed and limited in amount, say two

shillings or so on every mark coined37 and so forth, which would not involve

37 Fr. Vers. as of every mark of gold, six shillings and of every mark of silver, one

shilling, or other liberal rate.

any alteration or unreasonable and enormous increase in profit arising from

the detestable changes of which we have spoken.

The general conclusion from all this is that the prince cannot make these

changes or receive profit in this way either by the regular common law or by

privilege, gift, grant, bargain or any other authority or means whatever, nor

can it be his right in virtue of his lordship or otherwise. Also that the denial

of such a right is no disherison or infringement of his majesty as is falsely

alleged by flatterers, intriguers and traitors to the commonwealth. Again,

since the prince is bound not to do this, he deserves no pension or gift for

refraining from such an improper exaction, for this seems nothing less than a

ransom from slavery, which no king or good prince ought to exact from hissubjects. Also, supposing, but not admitting, that he may have the privilege

of drawing a profit from the coinage as a return for coining good money and

maintaining its standard, even so he must forfeit the privilege if he so abuses

it as to change and debase the money for the greedy and disgraceful

enhancement of his own profit.

25


26/30

CHAPTERXXV

That a Tyrant cannot be lasting

In this and the following chapter I propose to prove that raising money bysuch alterations of the coinage is dishonourable to the kingdom and to the

damage of all the king's posterity. You must know, therefore, that the

difference between kingdom and tyranny is that a tyrant loves and pursues

his own good more than the common advantage of his subjects, and aims at

keeping his people in slavery; a king, on the contrary, prefers the public

good to his own and loves above all things, after God and his own soul, the

good and public freedom of his subjects. And this is the true usefulness and

nobility of the princely power, whose lordship is the nobler and the better, as

Aristotle says,38 the more it is over freer and better men, and endures thelonger for the king's steadfastness in following that principle. As

Cassiodorus says:39 The art of governing is to love the interests of the

38 Pol. III. iv. 14?

39 Variae ix. 9. 5.

many. For whenever kingship approaches tyranny it is near its end, for by

this it becomes ripe for division, change of dynasty or total destruction,

especially in a temperate climate, far from a slavish barbarism, where men

are habitually, morally and naturally free, not slaves, nor habituated totyranny; to whom slavery would be unprofitable and unacceptable, and

tyranny nothing less than unnatural and therefore short-lived, since as

Aristotle says:40 Things contrary to nature most quickly decay. So, too,

Cicero says:41 That no empire is strong enough to last if it is full of fear.

And Seneca in his tragedies says:42

No-one can prolong Enforced empires: moderate empires last.

Wherefore the Lord by his prophet43 reproached the deposed princes, saying:

With force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And the same thing issaid elsewhere, for Plutarch says to the emperor Trajan that the state is a

body, living as it were by a gift of the gods, actuated by the decision of the

highest justice, and governed by the restraint of reason.44 The state or

kingdom, then, is like a human body and so Aristotle will have it in Book V

of the Politics.45 As, therefore, the body is disordered when the humours

flow too freely into one member of it, so that that member is often thus26


27/30

inflamed and overgrown while the others are withered and shrunken and the

body's due proportions are destroyed and its life shortened; so also is a

commonwealth or a kingdom when riches are unduly attracted by one part of

it. For a commonwealth or kingdom whose princes, as compared with their

subjects, increase beyond measure in wealth, power and position, is as it

were a monster, like a man whose head is so large and heavy that the rest of

his body is too weak to support it. And just as such a man has no pleasure in

life and cannot live long; neither can a kingdom survive whose prince draws

to himself riches in excess as is done by altering the coinage, as appeared in

40 Metaph. iv. 5. ?

41 De officiis ii. 25.

42 Troades 258-9. The same quotations occur together in the last paragraph of Oresme's

Contra Astrologos.43 Ezek. xxxiv. 4.

44 Inst. Trajani ii. Oresme is probably quoting from thePolicraticus of John of Salisbury,

by whom this work is thought to have been invented; seeJournal of the Warburg and

Courtauld Institutes, vi. (1943) 339 and xii. (1949) 189-90.

45 Pol. V, iii. 66 (1302b35).

Chapter XX. Again, as in a chorus unison has no power to please and

excessive or improper dissonance destroys and spoils the whole harmony,

but a proportional and measured difference of tone is needed to produce the

sweet melody of a joyous choir: so also, generally, equality of possessions or

power in all sections of the community is inconvenient and inconsistent, buttoo great a disparity destroys and spoils the harmony of the state, as appears

from Aristotle in Politics, Book V. But especially if the prince, who is, as it

were, the tenor and leading voice in singing, is too great and is out of tune

with the rest of the commonwealth, the sweet melody of the kingdom's

constitution will be disturbed. And this, as Aristotle says, is another

difference between a king and a tyrant. For a tyrant wishes to be more

powerful than the whole community over whom he rules by force: but a

king's moderation is restrained by the fact that he is greater and more

powerful than any of his subjects, but of less power or wealth than the whole

community, and so stands in the middle. But because the king's powercommonly and easily tends to increase, the greatest care and constant

watchfulness must be used, indeed extreme and supreme prudence is needed,

to keep it from degenerating into tyranny, especially because of deceitful

flatterers who have always, as Aristotle says, urged princes to be tyrants. For

they cunningly deceive the simple ears of princes (as we read in the book of

Esther), who judge other men's characters by their own, and by their27


28/30

suggestions kings' minds are turned to evil. But since it is hard to avoid them

or to root them out, Aristotle gives another rule by which a kingdom may

long survive. That is that the prince should not enlarge his dominion over his

subjects, should not overtax them or seize their goods, should allow or grant

them liberties and should not interfere with them or use his plenary powers

but only a power regulated and limited by law and custom. For few things,

as Aristotle says, should be left to the decision of a judge or a prince. For he

adduces the example of Theopompus, king of the Lacedaemonians,46 who,

after having given back to the people many powers and imposts, when his

wife wept and reproached him, saying, He should be ashamed to hand on to

his sons a less profitable kingdom than he had received from his father,

replied, I leave them a more permanent one. Surely an oracle of God! How

weighty a saying, fit to be written in golden letters in kings' palaces! I leave

them a more permanent one: as he might have put it, I have made the

46 Pol. V. xi. 3 (1313a26-33).

kingdom greater in duration than I have made it less by limiting its power.

A greater man than Solomon is here.47 For if Rehoboam, whom I mentioned

above, had received from his father Solomon a kingdom so limited, he

would never have lost ten of the twelve tribes of Israel, nor would he have

been reproached thus in Ecclesiasticus: Thou didst profane thy seed, to

bring wrath upon thy children; and I was grieved for thy folly; so that the

sovereignty was divided.48

It has thus been proved that a dominion which is turned from a kingdom to a

tyranny is bound to have a speedy end.

CHAPTERXXVI

That the taking of Profit from Alteration of the Coinage injures the whole Royal

Succession

I propound the thesis that the alterations before-mentioned are dishonourable

to the king and prejudicial to the royal house. To prove this I lay down three

premisses:

First that that is a reproach to a king and to the prejudice of his successors by

28


29/30

which a kingdom is exposed to destruction or to being given over to

strangers. Nor could a king grieve or weep enough who should be so

unhappy, so wretched as by his carelessness or mis-government to do

anything that brought him or his heirs to lose a kingdom ennobled by so

many great deeds and so long gloriously maintained. Nor would it be

without danger to his glorious soul, if by his fault his people should suffer so

many plagues, so many great misfortunes as usually accompany the fall or

the conquest of kingdoms.

Secondly, I submit that tyranny exposes a kingdom to ruin, as was set forth

in the last chapter and since, as it is written in Ecclesiasticus,49 Sovereignty

is transferred from nation to nation, because of iniquities and deeds of

violence and greed of money, while tyranny is iniquitous and violent.

47 Luke xi. 31.48 Ecclus. xlvii. 20-21.

49 Ecclus. x. 8.

Furthermore, to come to particulars, God forbid that the free hearts of

Frenchmen should have so degenerated that they should willingly become

slaves; and therefore a slavery thrust upon them cannot last. For, though the

power of tyrants is great, it does violence to the free hearts of subjects and is

of no avail against foreigners. Whoever, therefore, should in any way induce

the lords of France to such tyrannical government, would expose the realm

to great danger and pave the way to its end. For neither has the nobleoffspring of the French kings learned to be tyrannous, nor the people of Gaul

to be servile; therefore if the royal house decline from its ancient virtue, it

will certainly lose the kingdom.

Thirdly, I submit, as a point already proved and often repeated, that to take

or augment profit by alteration of the coinage is fraudulent, tyrannical and

unjust, and moreover it cannot be persisted in without the kingdom being, in

many other respects also, changed to a tyranny. Wherefore, it not only brings

disadvantages of its own, but involves many other evils as either its

conditions or its consequences. For this course can only be the advice ofevil-minded men, ready to counsel any fraud or tyranny, if they see a prince

inclined to it or willing to listen to it.

To sum up my argument, I say that a thing which tends to bring a realm to

ruin is disgraceful and harmful to the king and his heirs, my first premiss;

that it extends and changes to a tyranny, my second; and that it does so by29


30/30

alteration of the coinage, my third. Consequently a tax levied by means of

such changes is against the king's honour and injures his posterity, which

was to be proved.

All this, as I said before, is tentative and subject to correction by experts.

For, as Aristotle says:50 Civil matters are usually doubtful and uncertain. If

anyone, therefore, in his love of truth, chooses to contradict or oppose what I

have written, he will be doing well. And if I have spoken evil let him bear

witness of the evil, but with reason, lest he be seen needlessly and wilfully to

condemn what he is not able effectually to refute.

Here ends the treatise of the worthy Bishop Nicholas Oresme on alteration of the

Coinage

50 Eth. Nic. i. 3. 2 (1094b14-16).The French clergyman, scientist, economist,astronomer and translator Bishop Nicholas of

Oresme (ca. 1320-1382) is best known for his treatise on money, "De moneta," and for his

services to King Charles V of France.

Nicholas of Oresme was born at Allemagne in Normandy. Little is known of his early years,

except that he studied theology. He attended the College of Navarre of the University of Paris in1348 and served as master of that college from 1356 to 1361. By 1370 he had become royal

chaplain to King Charles V, and he had probably been Charles's tutor during the reign of

Charles's father, King John II.

Nicholas wrote on a great variety of scientific subjects, but he is best known for his economictheory, his translations of the works of Aristotle, and his opposition to astrology. Charles V, a

patron of the early Renaissance in France, collected a library of several thousand volumes. He

commissioned Nicholas to translate, from Latin into French, Aristotle'sDe caelo (On the

Heavens),Ethics, Politics, andEconomics. The influence of the King can also perhaps be seen in

Nicholas's chief interest, economics. Under the pressure of the economic disruption caused by

the Hundred Years War, Charles V reorganized royal finances into a system that was preserveduntil 1789. In these circumstances, Nicholas wrote his treatiseDe moneta (On Money) between

1355 and 1360. In it Nicholas maintained that money is the property of the community, not of

the ruler, and that, therefore, the ruler has an obligation to preserve the purity of coinage and may

not debase it.De moneta is not always a realistic reflection of late medieval economy, but itbecame very popular in the 17th century.

Nicholas became bishop of Lisieux in 1377, and he died there on July 11, 1382.

30

demoneta-14th century thought on coinage & money by bishop nicole mathematician, astronomer,...

Documents